Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor! Slavery in action. The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
Here is the way things work in the U.S. Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA! We are "supposed" to live in a democracy. But the business world rules your lives. How many people in business did you vote for. Do you vote for business or government. People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live. That is the government's job.
I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs. If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves. Also, want to see something interesting? Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.
Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor!
If Trump cuts the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%, the Poor have to pay taxes?
Walk thru the steps for me. Be as precise as you can.
Look at post #10.
Silly charts without a link back to their source are useless.
Useless? Well now you know there is a thing to search for on the internet. Just enter into your browser something like "Percentage of taxes paid based on income level." You will probably not only find that graph, but much more to support it.
Why would they believe that's a good idea?
I support simplification of government and claim, supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost. We could be lowering our taxes by improving the efficiency of our government.
I know, paying down debt, inconceivable!!! Liberals never believe people can be responsible.
No, just you. I think you say things like that in order to make you feel better about yourself. Everyone knows it's bullshit when Conservatives start waxing idiotic about their unverifiable personal lives. I mean, why sell yourself short? Reach for the stars! Why not pretend to be a billionaire yourself? How about I pretend to be a billionaire? Then nothing I say can be contradicted, right, because I'm a billionaire? Because I said so. Because. So whatever facts you may have (LOL) are instantly to be dismissed because I'm a billionaire and as such, I am the authority over everything fiscal and financial. Oooo - not only that, but I'm also a veteran as well, so anything I say about, say, foreign military policy or espionage has instant credibility because I said I'm a veteran. You see how silly that game of "me, me, me" is? Let's try to talk using facts, not exaggerations, omissions, or outright lies, mmkay?
Right, because cutting federal rates causes states to cut spending.
Explain why the Feds should be giving states money to give to state colleges.
Wait, so you are admitting that the Feds give states education funding. OK, that's important because it directly addresses what I've been saying; that income tax cuts result in revenue cuts, which result in spending cuts. So if you are cutting federal income taxes, and if there is federal money going to states for colleges and such, then wouldn't that mean that the less revenue collected from income tax cuts results in less revenues available for the Feds to distribute to the states? Why yes, it does. So thanks for helping me with my argument on that by tacitly admitting, whether you realize it or not, that you're explaining exactly what I've been saying this whole time.
Is that why states spend more and more? Maybe you have a list of states that have cut spending since 1981?
Well, we know it happened in Kansas, Louisiana, Arizona, and Wisconsin because all those states raided the welfare block grants in order to cover the deficits caused by their tax cuts. I just posted an article from the Kansas City Star where the Regents of Kansas' state university system came right out and said tuition hikes were caused by a decrease in funding. And what caused that decrease in funding in Kansas? TAX CUTS!
Has easing loan standards caused a hike in tuition or a drop?
If easy loan standards are blamed for the housing bubble, why not blame them for the tuition bubble?
No, loan standards have no bearing on state tuition costs. As the Board of Regents for Kansas' state schools told you in the link I provided, tuition was increased because of state cuts to education. The cause of tuition hikes is, and always will be, revenue decreases from tax cuts. So where do you go from there? Dunno. I'm sure you'll invent some personal anecdote that contradicts the claims, but we both know that's bullshit. We have the Kansas Board of Regents saying, with no doubt, that tuition costs were directly related to state aid, and state aid is directly related to revenues, and revenues come from taxes. When you cut revenues, you cut the amount available for state aid, causing tuition to rise.
Clinton tried to pay down debt? LOL! Prove it.
When I do, will you concede defeat on these boards, cancel your account, and never return? Because I can do it very, very easily just by providing Treasury Statements on Total Public Outstanding Debt that are distributed each month. I can prove that the national debt decreased according to those statements for the period between December 1999 and December 2000. Do you really want me to do that? Doing so is only going to humiliate you. I'm giving you an out. I advise you take it.
Right, because unsustainable Internet Bubbles would have continued until 2010. DERP!
First of all, the dotcom bubble (Caused by, you guessed it, TAX CUTS) popped before Bush was even President. Secondly, that's what Greenspan was whining about in the link I provided you. The video of him saying paying off the debt too soon wouldn't be fair to the bondholders. I mean, I can post the link again if you want.
Your moronic argument is that allowing me to keep more of my own money forces me to increase debt.You just can't prove it.
I did prove it using facts. You lied and pretended that you did the exact opposite, but again, why the fuck should I believe anything you say about yourself? If I can't verify it, then it's not a fact.
Yes, you need to prove causation.
I did exactly that. Reagan's tax cuts dropped consumer demand, which resulted in layoffs. They dropped consumer demand because while income taxes were cut, other taxes and fees (including payroll taxes, state and local taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, health care costs, education costs) all rise to make up for the drop in revenues from the income tax cut. So that's why household debt skyrocketed under Reagan, flat-lined during Clinton, then shot up again during Bush the Dumber. Tax cuts only create debt. That's all they do. That's all they're designed to do. Manufacture budget crises to use as an excuse to cut spending you lack the courage or support to do through legislation. So you posture about the budget, never mind the fact that you're the ones who threw the budget out of whack in the first place with your stupid tax cuts that you promised "would pay for themselves", but never seem to do.
Giving the government $1000 less, for instance, causes my spending on education and healthcare to increase by more than $1000?
Yes, because the government has a dwindling pool of revenues from which to spend, so out-of-pocket costs rise. The less you pay in taxes, the more you pay for things like education and health care. I've shown you how this happens. I've even given you a link directly to the Kansas Board of Regents who said, very plainly, that tuition costs rose because of funding cuts. Those funding cuts were because the tax cuts did not produce the revenues Brownback, Laffer, and all the teabags projected.
Yes, by all means ignore interest rates and the recession. DERP!
Interest rates? The Fed was lowering interest rates throughout 1982. The recession was also caused by ham-fisted fiscal policy. You cut taxes, but increased fees for everything else, so people had to spend more out of pocket outside the consumer economy, which resulted in less consumer spending, which resulted in...wait for it...a recession.
Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor! Slavery in action. The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
Here is the way things work in the U.S. Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA! We are "supposed" to live in a democracy. But the business world rules your lives. How many people in business did you vote for. Do you vote for business or government. People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live. That is the government's job.
I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs. If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves. Also, want to see something interesting? Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.
Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor!
If Trump cuts the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%, the Poor have to pay taxes?
Walk thru the steps for me. Be as precise as you can.
Look at post #10.
Silly charts without a link back to their source are useless.
Useless? Well now you know there is a thing to search for on the internet. Just enter into your browser something like "Percentage of taxes paid based on income level." You will probably not only find that graph, but much more to support it.
The source is on the graph.
Always amazes me to read RWNJs demand the right to give more of their money to the 1% but, they always do.
Same bunch voted to give the 1% control over their votes too. This last election, they voted to keep Citizens United.
Why would they believe that's a good idea?
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
So? Who said they must?
Well, when more people are employed, the need for spending in some areas should decrease.
Of course when you see Obama's massive job gains coinciding with massive increases in transfer payments......it is possible to screw that up.
I said, except for capital gains and income/business taxes at very high rates, they don't.
They increase economic growth and increase money in the hands of the people.
If you cut tax rates by 10%, for instance, and government revenues decrease by 5%,
Growth offsets a portion of the revenue loss to government.
Deficits matter, so let's cut spending.
That's showing cuts in excise/sales taxes, user fees, tolls, tuition and health care costs after income tax hikes?LOL!
So? Who said they must?
Everyone who has ever fucking proposed them. But if you're telling me now that they don't pay for themselves, then there goes the premise that cutting taxes creates growth. There goes the premise that cutting taxes increases revenues. There goes the premise that cutting taxes creates jobs. So if they don't grow the economy, don't increase revenues, and don't create jobs, then what's the fucking point of them? Simple; to manufacture budget crises that are used as an excuse to cut spending for programs you lack the courage and support to repeal through legislation. Basically, I'm calling you a chickenshit.
Well, when more people are employed, the need for spending in some areas should decrease.
But tax cuts don't create jobs (see paragraph above), as we saw during Reagan and Bush the Dumber. Instead, they killed jobs. Sooooooo.....
Of course when you see Obama's massive job gains coinciding with massive increases in transfer payments......it is possible to screw that up.
You mean when Obama raised taxes, jobs were created? Because that's exactly what happened. I remember back in 2012 when Obama was going to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the top 1%. Conservatives at the time said it would kill jobs, crash the market, and plunge the economy into a recession. Wrong on all three. So if you all were so fucking wrong then, why would you be right now? BTW - 1.5 million jobs were created in 2013. In other words, the opposite result of what Conservatives were predicting. So again, if they were so wrong then, why would they be right now?
I said, except for capital gains and income/business taxes at very high rates, they don't.
So there's that squishiness that is so rampant in Conservative dogma. "Very high rates" means what? 90%? 70%? When rates were "very high" during the 50's and 60's, it didn't seem to do anything to stop job growth. I see why you use ambiguous and generlized words and phrases...you do it to give yourself wiggle room later because you are not secure in the facts and have to craft escape hatches for yourself in your argument. What a pathetic and shitty thing to do. Shame!
They increase economic growth and increase money in the hands of the people.
NO THEY DON'T! How many times do I have to post this chart before you let it sink in:
If you cut tax rates by 10%, for instance, and government revenues decrease by 5%,
So this is where theory gets crushed by reality. Your theory is that tax cuts will result in more spending (that's what you're saying here...that they "pay for themselves"). However the reality is that cutting income taxes leads to cuts in spending, which leads to increased out-of-pocket costs for consumers outside of the consumer economy (such as: health care, education). So you keep using theory, but the reality tells a different story. Why are you so dependent on theory? Why can't you deal with facts?
Growth offsets a portion of the revenue loss to government.
"A portion"? So moving the goalposts there, I see. What "portion" exactly? And the growth just isn't there. It wasn't there during Reagan, it wasn't there during Bush the Dumber. Tax cuts were not sold as something that would offset the drop in revenues. Tax cuts were sold as being able "to pay for themselves" so now what you're saying is that they kinda, sorta increase growth, but not really and it's not quantifiable, it's just what you happen to believe in your gut. Right? That's really what this is...you wishing your gut was reflective of the truth. All your gut is reflective of are the mountains of ho-ho's you shove in your mouth. You do not have good instincts. Do not trust in them because they are wrong and leading you down a humiliating path. I mean I feel humiliated for you. How's that for empathy!?
Deficits matter, so let's cut spending.
Or we could just raise taxes since, by your own squishy admission, tax cuts don't really pay for themselves or product quantifiable growth. However, there is mountains of evidence showing they cause households to go into debt because, like what happened in Kansas, state schools have to raise tuition costs to make up for the funding gap that occurred thanks to spending cuts, thanks to tax cuts reducing revenue.
That's showing cuts in excise/sales taxes, user fees, tolls, tuition and health care costs after income tax hikes?LOL!
No, what it shows is that when taxes are cut, tuition costs rise. That's what the Kansas Board of Regents said. Not even sure what bullshit argument you're trying to make here. Facts show that tax cuts lead to debt and job loss. That's in the numbers, and in the quotes.
No, I'm saying if they do, they should stop.
If you want your state to give money to your state schools, get your state to do it.
Pay more in state taxes. Lobby your state officials. Stop looking for Federal money.
Those states cut state spending? Because Federal tax rates were cut? I don't believe you.
No, loan standards have no bearing on housing costs. DERP!
Unless you're showing me that Kansas cut funding because the Fed tax rates were cut, it's irrelevant.
And when you don't, will you?
What does that have to do with the ridiculous claim that Clinton tried to pay down debt?
That's an especially moronic claim.
For that to be the case, you'd have to show that those increases, if they happened, took more money out of consumer pockets than Fed tax cuts added to consumer pockets.
Why does my extra $1000 cause those things to cost MORE than $1000 extra?
Yes, Fed Funds. That thing you didn't understand in an earlier thread. LOL!
And before 1982? DERP!
Everyone who ever proposed a tax cut said they all pay for themselves? Are you sure?
Nope. Cutting taxes can cause growth, even if they don't "pay for themselves".
Nope. Cutting taxes can create jobs, even if they don't "pay for themselves".
They do, they don't (usually) and they do.
To grow the economy, create jobs and shrink government as a % of GDP.
No, I'm saying if they do, they should stop.
If you want your state to give money to your state schools, get your state to do it.
Pay more in state taxes. Lobby your state officials. Stop looking for Federal money.
So you don't know? Why are you talking about things you don't know anything about? Why even open your mouth? Are you that starved for attention because you're so insecure? Sheesh. The point is that you make promises and claims of a policy, both of which simply are not true. So that's why your stupid arguments always seem to veer into this unintelligible space of hypothetical and "if's". You use "If" more than any other Conservative poster I've seen on my limited time on these boards. Everything with you is a hypothetical or a theory. None of it is grounded in fact or law.
FACT: Income tax cuts result in revenue reduction, which results in deficits, which results in spending cuts, which results in increased tuition costs.
Those states cut state spending? Because Federal tax rates were cut? I don't believe you.
You don't have to believe me, you just have to accept the facts.
No, loan standards have no bearing on housing costs. DERP!
So you just switched the subjefct because you realized you were full of shit. The standards of your loan have no bearing on the value of the house you are trying to buy. It has bearing on your interest rate, but not on the value of the house.
Do you...do you know what a "loan" is?
Unless you're showing me that Kansas cut funding because the Fed tax rates were cut, it's irrelevant.
So you moved the goalposts again, because we weren't talking about federal income tax, we were talking about just income tax. So if you are going to continue to redefine the parameters of the debate, a heads-up would be appreciated. The difference between Kansas and the Feds, is that Kansas has a BBA and the Feds do not. So the Feds aren't required to cut spending in order to balance a budget. But Kansas is. Setting aside your obvious goalpost shifting...
And when you don't, will you?
Ah, but I can...do you really want me to? Do you know what you're getting yourself into?
What does that have to do with the ridiculous claim that Clinton tried to pay down debt?
Ummm....the Treasury statements show a reduction in the debt, therefore DEBT WAS PAID DOWN. I don't know how clearer I can make it for you. I mean, do you speak English? Maybe you need a better Russian-to-English Google translator.
That's an especially moronic claim.
It's actually true because Reagan immediately raised taxes, starting in 1982. Why would he have done that if tax cuts paid for themselves? Oh right, now you're arguing from the laughable position that they don't pay for themselves. Just "a portion". LOL! Hilariously pathetic.
For that to be the case, you'd have to show that those increases, if they happened, took more money out of consumer pockets than Fed tax cuts added to consumer pockets.
A poster already did that on this thread. I can also point to THIS CHART, showing household debt skyrocketing during Reagan and Bush the Dumber. So why did household debt skyrocket if tax cuts were supposed to let people keep more of what they earned? You haven't answered that very fundamental question that cuts to the heart of, well, your entire belief system.
Why does my extra $1000 cause those things to cost MORE than $1000 extra?
Because it's not just you, shithead, it's everyone in that top income bracket. (NOTE: I reject the premise you are in the top bracket, for full disclosure)
Yes, Fed Funds. That thing you didn't understand in an earlier thread. LOL!
So lower interest rates caused job loss? How so?
And before 1982? DERP!
Before 1982, we had a tax cut that were promised would pay for themselves and create jobs. It didn't. BTW - we didn't enter a recession until after Reagan's tax cuts. Stagflation is not the same thing as a recession. BTW - the unemployment rate remained relatively static until taxes were cut. Then it shot up. Why?
Everyone who ever proposed a tax cut said they all pay for themselves? Are you sure?
Yup. 100%. Laffer was even making that stupid claim as recent as 5 years ago in Kansas.
Nope. Cutting taxes can cause growth, even if they don't "pay for themselves".
Oh, "can" cause growth? Notice how the narrative starts to crumble. Before, you were assured that they do create growth, now you're saying they "can" create growth? Well, I can have a lovely evening banging Carla Gugino. But that doesn't mean I will.
Nope. Cutting taxes can create jobs, even if they don't "pay for themselves".
Again, there's that word again..."can". A squishy word thrown in almost under the radar to allow yourself the wiggle room to weasel out of the conversation later on. My cat "can" play the piano. But it doesn't.
They do, they don't (usually) and they do.
Wait, wait...you just said before they "can", not that they do. So you got tripped up in your own narrative. Again. This is getting SAD!
To grow the economy, create jobs and shrink government as a % of GDP.
So we've already established the first two are not true. You did that yourself when you said they "can". The third one is actually right on the money. Tax cuts are designed to increase deficits an manufacture budget crises that are used as an excuse to cut spending you are ideologically opposed to, but lack the courage or support to repeal through legislation. Because you're a chickenshit.
NOW back to why those "job creators" who receive 250%-400% of ALL US income
WHILE paying a MUCH smaller tax burden
Your spam and diversions do not answer the question...
"Where does the rich get their money from?"
Your ability to try to stick to one talking point is noted Bubs
You'll note CONTEXT that tax cuts for the rich ARE and have been the biggest gain by those "job creators" since 1980's
(Hint it's called TAX POLICY)...
It's obvious the real reason Conservatives want to cut taxes; they want to starve the Treasury of revenue in order to force spending cuts to programs they are ideologically opposed to,
they earn it from the middle class and poor by offering them goods that are worth more to them than their money. If not, they would not part with their money. Next??Where does the rich get their money from?
From who?
NO! Consumer demand is what grows an economy.
Once again, simplicity has tripped you up.LMAOROG, Gawd you are as dumb as a rock
Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent
According research by Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez, the optimal top income tax rate for wealthy earners is about 70 percent, far below today’s top rate of 35 percent. Diamond and Saez argue that the top tax rate should be set at the point where it maximizes revenue, which can then be used to aid lower-income Americans. They also note that “even increasing the average federal income tax rate of the top percentile to 43.5 percent, which would be sufficient to raise revenue by 3 percentage points of GDP, would still leave the after-tax income share of the top percentile more than twice as high as in 1970.”
Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent
YOU DO KNOW THERE IS A LEFT AND RIGHT OF LAFFER'S CURVE RIGHT? RONNIE REAGAN HAD A TOP RATE OF 50% WHEN YOU KLOWNS CLAIM THE ECONOMY WAS BOOMING!!!
What was the net tax rate during the period of 50%? How much wages/income was going to taxes?
What is the net tax rate today? It isn't only about income tax, or only about capital gains tax, or only about sales tax, or only about corporate tax. It is the collective impact of the overall tax load.
You mean when Carter left 19.6% of GDP and Ronnie GUTTED it to 17.4%?
TAXES ON THE RICH GREATLY WERE REDUCED BUBS, BUT RONNIE INCREASED TAXES ON THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS 11 TIMES TO MAKE UP REVENUES!
Are you EVER going to have a valid point Bubs?
TAXES ON THE RICH GREATLY WERE REDUCED BUBS, BUT RONNIE INCREASED TAXES ON THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS 11 TIMES TO MAKE UP REVENUES!
It's a good thing the tax cuts for the poor and middle class were larger than the hikes, eh?
Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!
But glad to see you think it's ok to not only starve US treasury of revenues BUT to benefit those at the very top the most which is what Reaganomics is
Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!
Show me. And show me how much more the top 20% paid.
Once again, simplicity has tripped you up.LMAOROG, Gawd you are as dumb as a rock
Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent
According research by Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez, the optimal top income tax rate for wealthy earners is about 70 percent, far below today’s top rate of 35 percent. Diamond and Saez argue that the top tax rate should be set at the point where it maximizes revenue, which can then be used to aid lower-income Americans. They also note that “even increasing the average federal income tax rate of the top percentile to 43.5 percent, which would be sufficient to raise revenue by 3 percentage points of GDP, would still leave the after-tax income share of the top percentile more than twice as high as in 1970.”
Study: Optimal Top Tax Rate For The Rich Is 70 Percent
YOU DO KNOW THERE IS A LEFT AND RIGHT OF LAFFER'S CURVE RIGHT? RONNIE REAGAN HAD A TOP RATE OF 50% WHEN YOU KLOWNS CLAIM THE ECONOMY WAS BOOMING!!!
What was the net tax rate during the period of 50%? How much wages/income was going to taxes?
What is the net tax rate today? It isn't only about income tax, or only about capital gains tax, or only about sales tax, or only about corporate tax. It is the collective impact of the overall tax load.
You mean when Carter left 19.6% of GDP and Ronnie GUTTED it to 17.4%?
TAXES ON THE RICH GREATLY WERE REDUCED BUBS, BUT RONNIE INCREASED TAXES ON THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS 11 TIMES TO MAKE UP REVENUES!
Are you EVER going to have a valid point Bubs?
TAXES ON THE RICH GREATLY WERE REDUCED BUBS, BUT RONNIE INCREASED TAXES ON THE POOR/MIDDLE CLASS 11 TIMES TO MAKE UP REVENUES!
It's a good thing the tax cuts for the poor and middle class were larger than the hikes, eh?
Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!
But glad to see you think it's ok to not only starve US treasury of revenues BUT to benefit those at the very top the most which is what Reaganomics is
Well the treasury disagrees Bubs, the middle 40% (between bottom 40%-80%) paid more federal taxes in 1989 than 1980!
Show me. And show me how much more the top 20% paid.
Cutting taxes on individuals in the 80s seemed to help.
Did it, though? Almost immediately after Reagan's 1981 tax cut, the unemployment rate shot up to a record high of 10.8% by the end of 1982, more than a year after the cuts were passed, and one year with them in effect. Then the Fed lowered interest rates throughout 1982, and increased spending by $32B for 1983. Those things had more to do with revenue growth than the mysterious tax cuts that don't pay for themselves, and never will. Reagan then raised taxes 11 times the rest of his term. How can this be if tax cuts are so wonderful?
Cutting taxes on individuals increases after tax income.
No. It increases household debt. That's it. The reason is because tax cuts have to be paid by something, since they don't pay for themselves (despite Conservatives saying over and over they do), that something always ends up being increased sales and excise taxes, as well as increased tuition and health care costs. Why? Because by cutting revenues, you produce deficits. Those deficits have to be closed somehow. And what is always first on the chopping block? Education. We saw it in Kansas last year. Taxes were cut, massive deficits appeared, the BBA in KS meant that the deficit gap had to be closed. So how did they close it? By raiding the welfare block grant (meaning tax cuts are dependent on welfare), by shutting down Public schools early, and by hiking tuition costs at Kansas' state colleges. We saw the same thing happen in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Louisiana too. In fact, those cuts cost Brownback his teabag KS legislature, cost Jindal his governorship, and cost Walker his credibility (not like he had any in the first place, but whatevs).
The government has pumped trillions into college spending and you're surprised prices have jumped? You never tried again after you failed Econ 101, did you?
Moron, when the government "pours money" into higher education, it does so to decrease tuition costs for students. When government cuts education spending to pay for tax cuts we were promised would pay for themselves, that increases tuition costs because schools have to make up for the funding gap that came from spending cuts. Looks like you need to go back and take Intro to Math for Remedial Students again.
They were too high.
According to whom? Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and created over 22,000,000 jobs. Bush cut taxes in 2001 and lost 460,000. Bush cut taxes because, in his own words, "surpluses mean we are overtaxed" (how are you supposed to pay down debt if you don't have surpluses?) and in Greenspan's own words, that paying off the debt too soon "wouldn't be fair to the bondholders". The whole reasoning behind the Bush Tax Cuts -besides the false promise they would pay for themselves- was more of the same trickle-down bullshit nonsense we've heard the last 40 years. It took a housing bubble in order to get the economy moving again. A housing bubble you blame on Clinton and the Democrats. But doing so means you cannot credit Bush for the resulting growth from that housing bubble. You can't give Bush credit for something while blaming everyone else for the consequences of that thing. I mean, you can, but you're just being shitty when you do.
I paid down my household debt with my tax cut.
And right on cue comes the unverifiable Conservative anecdote that is supposed to be a substitute for actual fact. I don't believe you when you make these wild claims. You wouldn't believe me if I told you I was Tom Brady, so why the fuck should I believe you when you make claims about yourself?
ou think tax cuts can be blamed for private sector job loss? Wait...you're trying to make liberals look stupid. Now your posts make sense. Thanks!
Hold the phone, dude! The promise of tax cuts was that they would create jobs and growth. Neither of which happened. So the promise is bullshit, which makes the policy bullshit. Tax cuts kill jobs. We saw it during Reagan (unemployment spiked immediately after the tax cuts were passed), going from 7.4% in August 1981 (the month Reagan's tax cut was passed), up to 10.8% unemployment by December 1982. So if tax cuts create jobs, where were all the jobs? The only conclusion we can make is that cutting taxes did nothing to increase consumer demand, which flat-lined resulting in a decline of business expansion and layoffs.
Did it, though?
Yes.
Reagan then raised taxes 11 times the rest of his term.
By how much? How does that compare to his cuts?
No.
Yes. Cutting tax rates clearly increases after tax income.
View attachment 127550
Real Disposable Personal Income
It increases household debt. That's it. The reason is because tax cuts have to be paid by something,
No. My rate cut left me with more after tax income which allowed me to pay down household debt.
when the government "pours money" into higher education, it does so to decrease tuition costs for students.
Is that why tuition has soared so much? DERP!
When the government pushes student easy money loans, colleges react by boosting tuition and fees.
Unless you can show me a drop in tuition since Obama had the Feds take over student lending?
(how are you supposed to pay down debt if you don't have surpluses?)
When have Dems ever tried to pay down debt?
and in Greenspan's own words, that paying off the debt too soon "wouldn't be fair to the bondholders".
Link?
And right on cue comes the unverifiable Conservative anecdote that is supposed to be a substitute for actual fact.
So the tax cuts can't be proven to force everyone to increase debt?
I don't believe you when you make these wild claims.
Paying down debt is a wild claim? You've never paid down debt?
The promise of tax cuts was that they would create jobs and growth.
Yup. So prove that tax cuts cost jobs.
And walk thru the steps.....
1) Cut taxes...
2)???
3)???
4)???
5) Jobs are cut...
Feel free to show more steps if you need them.
We saw it during Reagan (unemployment spiked immediately after the tax cuts were passed), going from 7.4% in August 1981 (the month Reagan's tax cut was passed), up to 10.8% unemployment by December 1982.
View attachment 127556
LOL!
I am trying to convince the right wing to advance a "second wave" to end the drug war. They prefer to "hate on the poor", and cut social services, instead.I support simplification of government and claim, supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost. We could be lowering our taxes by improving the efficiency of our government.
So, I'm not sure where this sentiment comes from about inefficiency in government. Part of the inefficency comes from the fact that government programs are already cut to the bone, and those cuts are operational. So as operational funding to programs drops, those programs start to fail. Then Conservatives point to the failing programs (that they caused to fail when they cut their funding) as an excuse to sell them off to private interests who profit off them at our expense while not delivering outcomes any better than what was before (see: Charter schools, private prisons).
What this is really about is the Conservative zeal to cut government so they can have their rich friends skip away with all the wealth, while leaving a crumbing infrastructure in their wake.
